get_async_io_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important behavior: it reads from pg_aios, reports configuration/concurrency/file handle usage, and falls back to version notice on PG < 18. It implies read-only monitoring through prohibited use cases, though permissions/auth requirements are not stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The structured headings make the definition easy to scan and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the repeated 'async I/O' phrasing and multi-section formatting add some verbosity for a simple one-parameter status tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity, one optional parameter, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers version fallback, monitored objects, and configuration reporting. It lacks sibling differentiation and permission/authentication context, but those are not fatal for this read-only monitoring tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that database_name is optional and uses a default if omitted. It does not clarify what the default database actually is, preventing a higher score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: monitoring asynchronous I/O subsystem status, including the pg_aios view and PG18+ scope. It is clear but does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from close siblings like get_io_stats or get_per_backend_io_stats.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit trigger phrases such as 'async I/O status' and 'AIO monitoring', plus prohibited uses for configuration changes and storage modifications. It does not route the agent to alternative sibling tools when the request is for broader I/O statistics rather than async I/O.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.